The USA still has provisions to lock up "insurgents", but they are almost never used these days except for extreme circumstances. Certainly not against some kids doing a protest song in a church. The Wiki-leaks guy? Oh yeah, they want him bad.

@ Skye: That pic was classic.

there no need for assange the chinese are workin on it, we will miss the usa soon in 2030 when we will be working in chinese factory.compared.the usa isnt perfect but il take it anyday over for exemple, the chinese governement who represents everything that is soulless and wrong.

there no need for assange the chinese are workin on it, we will miss the usa soon in 2030 when we will be working in chinese factory.compared.the usa isnt perfect but il take it anyday over for exemple, the chinese governement who represents everything that is soulless and wrong.

LOL, I hear you brother. Balances and checks. It's supposed to be what the USA is all about. China cannot become a world power unless the USA inadvertently makes them one. Only time will tell at this point.

Quote:

This world needs Assanges: whisteblowers keep the powers that be in check. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that.

If someone is more bothered by leaked documents than the horrors they reveal, then I would question their humanity. No joke.

No, every nation NEEDS it's secrets. People are always trying to undermine their governments, worse yet other countries try to do it. and living in the US, I NEED my government. I can't do the things I do in any other country.

I get what you're saying. There's only so much time and resources for any one network. This means there are choices of what 'makes the cut' for airtime.
There are pros and cons to each outlet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LimpyLoo

Exactly.

That's (one of the reasons) why I'm saying the internet is better.

FYI i include the internet in the "pros and cons" reasoning.

There are benefits to both. There are drawbacks to both.
i suppose which is 'better' depends on the specific subject at hand.
I'm not 'against the internet' nor 'for tv'. both can be great. both can suck

There are benefits to both. There are drawbacks to both.
i suppose which is 'better' depends on the specific subject at hand.
I'm not 'against the internet' nor 'for tv'. both can be great. both can suck

That has noting to do with censorship and everything to do with theft.

What Tenenbaum did was a crime (distributing other peoples work without compensation is a federal felony, although it's seldom prosecuted).

He wasn't prosecuted as a criminal however. That's a big break right there.

He was also charged with distributing only 30 songs, even though he admitted in court to distributing over 800. Another huge break.

He was offered the opportunity to settle for a very nominal sum ( yetanother big break). He refused.

He was convicted BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS, who determined the amount of his fine. Let's look at that again - A JURY OF HIS PEERS. That's 12 normal men and women. Obviously they though that he'd done something pretty wrong.

Nothing in his case had anything whatsoever to do with censorship. Nobody denied him his right to speak - in fact he was given an entire court trial to make his case.

It's not "censorship" when a criminal is found guilty. It's not censorship when a person is, for example, found liable for creating or maintaining a hazard the results in injury to another person.

It's not censorship when you're told you can't have your milk and cookies without paying for them.

You don't hear anybody complaining about the "civil rights" of shoplifters and car thieves. Why should it be any different just because someone uses a computer?

All that is capitalistic rubbish to me sorry. I'm not saying this to be rude so let me explain it better.
There is no crime in sharing music if you think about it from a clear perspective. Its the law that made it a crime. Well who made those laws?
What if the business around music would stop, would music die with it?
Do not think about it only from a economic (business) point of view but as a humanistic view point. Joss Stone - positions of the copyright industries are not necessarily shared by the artists - YouTube

I don't care if this guy shared 1 of 10000 songs music should be shared. The more artist putting out royalty free music the better. Create money on tours etc.
Madonna and other famous artists have enough cash now right? why do they keep wanting more? When is enough enough? What is stopping them from giving music away for free? Again why should most people be happy with these outdated copyright laws? I copied all my original albums to my hard drive and gave the albums (about a 1000 of them) away for free. Should I be sued now? Basically I did the same as the guy only in a much more slower oldskool way. For the record I'm not sharing any copyrighted material on internet.

Pulling out car thieves and such proofs the lack of understanding how the real world should work. Can you download a car?
Not yet because if that was possible we would all drive the best car possible. heh
3D printers are coming a long way and getting cheaper, better every year. Tell me how this current (clearly corrupt) system can survive this new technology?
Most jobs are in the service sector now and most of those jobs will also be replaced my machines and technology in the near future.

Let me go deeper on that..

You don't want your own car all you wan't is a car available when you need it.
A more open source society would have cars on most streets with AI that can take you anywhere you wanna go.
Installed with sensors and the best technology so you wouldn't even have to steer it yourself, clean it, repair it etc. Also it would lower the rate on accidents.
Yes I have seen to much movies but no this is not sciencefiction.

But what do we do? We build this big lineup of crappy cars for everybody.
Cars that are standing still most of the time so think about how much we are over producing and wasting resources that this planet has to offer on a massive scale. The car industry also lives on parts so you better break it fast otherwise we got jobs to fire.

Please understand that we should embrace new technology and science to create a society were we can rid of most jobs. Picture a full automated world. No more poverty, no more politics, no more scarcity and conditioning that turns people into so called thieves in the first place.
You can't fight the system from within with the tools that are made with this system. Think outside the box and care for somebody.

There's a crazy little thing called "human nature" that tends to undermine these idealistic utopian visions. Yes, Madonna is greedy for endlessly more amounts of money, even though she doesn't need it. In that, she's a micro-cosm of all of us, I'm afraid.

There's a crazy little thing called "human nature" that tends to undermine these idealistic utopian visions. Yes, Madonna is greedy for endlessly more amounts of money, even though she doesn't need it. In that, she's a micro-cosm of all of us, I'm afraid.

Don't you mean human behaviour? Behaviour is shaped by condition we live in.
Human Nature doesn't exist as far as I know.

Err... if we all lived in a country where you didn't have to pay for ****, then yes.. we would probably give our product away.
But back in reality, in our (and most) non-socialist/communist countries people have to do this thing called "Earn a Living".
What that literally means is you need to earn money to live, if you don't you can't eat and will literally die.
So, by you and your ilk stealing music, you're literally killing musicians...

Quote:

Originally Posted by champ

All that is capitalistic rubbish to me sorry. I'm not saying this to be rude so let me explain it better.
There is no crime in sharing music if you think about it from a clear perspective. Its the law that made it a crime. Well who made those laws?
What if the business around music would stop, would music die with it?
Do not think about it only from a economic (business) point of view but as a humanistic view point. Joss Stone - positions of the copyright industries are not necessarily shared by the artists - YouTube

I don't care if this guy shared 1 of 10000 songs music should be shared. The more artist putting out royalty free music the better. Create money on tours etc.
Madonna and other famous artists have enough cash now right? why do they keep wanting more? When is enough enough? What is stopping them from giving music away for free? Again why should most people be happy with these outdated copyright laws? I copied all my original albums to my hard drive and gave the albums (about a 1000 of them) away for free. Should I be sued now? Basically I did the same as the guy only in a much more slower oldskool way. For the record I'm not sharing any copyrighted material on internet.

Pulling out car thieves and such proofs the lack of understanding how the real world should work. Can you download a car?
Not yet because if that was possible we would all drive the best car possible. heh
3D printers are coming a long way and getting cheaper, better every year. Tell me how this current (clearly corrupt) system can survive this new technology?
Most jobs are in the service sector now and most of those jobs will also be replaced my machines and technology in the near future.

Let me go deeper on that..

You don't want your own car all you wan't is a car available when you need it.
A more open source society would have cars on most streets with AI that can take you anywhere you wanna go.
Installed with sensors and the best technology so you wouldn't even have to steer it yourself, clean it, repair it etc. Also it would lower the rate on accidents.
Yes I have seen to much movies but no this is not sciencefiction.

But what do we do? We build this big lineup of crappy cars for everybody.
Cars that are standing still most of the time so think about how much we are over producing and wasting resources that this planet has to offer on a massive scale. The car industry also lives on parts so you better break it fast otherwise we got jobs to fire.

Please understand that we should embrace new technology and science to create a society were we can rid of most jobs. Picture a full automated world. No more poverty, no more politics, no more scarcity and conditioning that turns people into so called thieves in the first place.
You can't fight the system from within with the tools that are made with this system. Think outside the box and care for somebody.

can anyone tell what day the internet censorship protest is going to be on to heighten awareness of actual censorship as opposed the google imagined kind?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rack gear

so where's the great internet protest and black out for solidarity in response to this censorship?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rack gear

agreed. but do let me know when the big internet/google sponsored protest is going to be, I want to make sure I'm ready with all those google and wikipedia approved anti-censorship logos and graphics...

Quote:

Originally Posted by rack gear

just let me know when that big internet protest is going to take place in opposition to ACTUAL censorship and oppression as opposed to the imagined Google variety...

Quote:

Originally Posted by rack gear

just let me know when that big internet protest is going to take place in opposition to ACTUAL censorship and oppression as opposed to the imagined Google variety...
still waiting...

Can anyone tell me what Pussy Riot was doing to feed the starving children of Africa? I'd really like to know. Frankly, Pussy Riot's silence on the subject of starving children of Africa is highly worrisome to me as an individual who is concerned about starving children in Africa. If Pussy Riot would finally take a stand on the matter of starving children in Africa, they might garner more than 140,000 signatures of support for their cause. Well, I'll just keep reading Google News' dedicated section for Pussy Riot news, in anticipation of the time when Pussy Riot finally speaks out about the starving children in Africa.

...
What that literally means is you need to earn money to live, if you don't you can't eat and will literally die.
So, by you and your ilk stealing music, you're literally killing musicians...

You're wrong. They're not killing musicians, they're killing music.
What they're actually doing is making it impractical for you to make a living by making music. You need to find something else to do to earn money to live, just like anyone else whose profession has "gone away". For example, anyone who used to make things that are now made in China or SE Asia.

You're wrong. They're not killing musicians, they're killing music.
What they're actually doing is making it impractical for you to make a living by making music. You need to find something else to do to earn money to live, just like anyone else whose profession has "gone away". For example, anyone who used to make things that are now made in China or SE Asia.

How much do you want to bet Pussy Riot makes more money than you or I do when they get out of jail? Oh, the songs, the books, the jokes...

Can anyone tell me what Pussy Riot was doing to feed the starving children of Africa? I'd really like to know. Frankly, Pussy Riot's silence on the subject of starving children of Africa is highly worrisome to me as an individual who is concerned about starving children in Africa. If Pussy Riot would finally take a stand on the matter of starving children in Africa, they might garner more than 140,000 signatures of support for their cause. Well, I'll just keep reading Google News' dedicated section for Pussy Riot news, in anticipation of the time when Pussy Riot finally speaks out about the starving children in Africa.

just let me know when that big internet protest is going to take place in opposition to ACTUAL censorship and oppression as opposed to the imagined Google variety...

What they're actually doing is making it impractical for you to make a living by making music. You need to find something else to do to earn money to live, just like anyone else whose profession has "gone away".

pretty much. there will always be music regardless so that part doesn't really bother me. my whole life was mostly listening to music from 'the far left' of the fm dial anyway.

there is an expressed bias around here for 'professional' music as opposed to the peasantry's output.

regardless of whether it becomes impossible to make a living in the music business, except for the rarefied relative few as always, from whatever the causes, the end result is the same... its not a good time to earn a living at it.

My opinion is that if you speak out on behalf of one injustice, you have an imperative to speak out on behalf of all injustice. It might be difficult to get anything done this way, but I know you agree because you think Google and Wikipedia should use their sites to influence all issues of justice, not primarily only ones that affect their principal operation. Pussy Riot may be Russian activists with a focus on issues of governmental corruption and oppression in Russia, but they really need to finally take a stand on the matter of starving children in Africa.

In fact, maybe Google should become a search index of injustice; not a search engine of internet websites, and Wikipedia should become a wiki of worldwide injustice; not just an encyclopedia. And for that matter, maybe Gearslutz should stop being a forum where one can discuss how much better their analog mixer is than its digital equivalent, or how much better their digital mixer is than its analog equivalent, and could rather be a site dedicated to somehow using both digital and analog mixers to rectify all forms of injustice.

I think we may be onto something here. The one problem is that I don't think the starving children of Africa can eat either analog or digital mixers.

My opinion is that if you speak out on behalf of one injustice, you have an imperative to speak out on behalf of all injustice. It might be difficult to get anything done this way, but I know you agree because you think Google and Wikipedia should use their sites to influence all issues of justice, not primarily only ones that affect their principal operation. Pussy Riot may be Russian activists with a focus on issues of governmental corruption and oppression in Russia, but they really need to finally take a stand on the matter of starving children in Africa.

In fact, maybe Google should become a search index of injustice; not a search engine of internet websites, and Wikipedia should become a wiki of worldwide injustice; not just an encyclopedia. And for that matter, maybe Gearslutz should stop being a forum where one can discuss how much better their analog mixer is than its digital equivalent, or how much better their digital mixer is than its analog equivalent, and could rather be a site dedicated to somehow using both digital and analog mixers to rectify worldwide injustice.

My opinion is that if you speak out on behalf of one injustice, you have an imperative to speak out on behalf of all injustice. It might be difficult to get anything done this way, but I know you agree because you think Google and Wikipedia should use their sites to influence all issues of justice, not primarily only ones that affect their principal operation. Pussy Riot may be Russian activists with a focus on issues of governmental corruption and oppression in Russia, but they really need to finally take a stand on the matter of starving children in Africa.

In fact, maybe Google should become a search index of injustice; not a search engine of internet websites, and Wikipedia should become a wiki of worldwide injustice; not just an encyclopedia. And for that matter, maybe Gearslutz should stop being a forum where one can discuss how much better their analog mixer is than its digital equivalent, or how much better their digital mixer is than its analog equivalent, and could rather be a site dedicated to somehow using both digital and analog mixers to rectify all forms of injustice.

I think we may be onto something here. The one problem is that I don't think the starving children of Africa can eat either analog or digital mixers.

sorry... when is that big internet protest is going to take place in opposition to ACTUAL censorship and oppression as opposed to the imagined Google variety... so funny... actual censorship... nadda... imagined (fabricated) censorship... hire lobbyists and have a web black out to illustrate what censorship and oppression looks like...

my whole life was mostly listening to music from 'the far left' of the fm dial anyway.

Same here. Actually I gave up on radio because my taste in music was completely missing anywhere on the dial.

Quote:

there is an expressed bias around here for 'professional' music as opposed to the peasantry's output.

How many times?......no, no, no.
There is a bias here 1) to respect creative people's choices, and 2) to respect a reality..... which is if you talk to anyone creative, 99.99999% of them will tell you their passionate goal is to be able to be creative all day everyday, in other words professionally.
Let's all cheer if it's a positive that musicians choices are trodden on, and many fewer musicians get to make a living making music.
NOT.